The "Middle East and Terrorism" Blog was created in order to supply information about the implication of Arab countries and Iran in terrorism all over the world. Most of the articles in the blog are the result of objective scientific research or articles written by senior journalists.

From the Ethics of the Fathers: "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it."

Friday, February 10, 2017

To what lengths would America's leaders go to protect a group that
the United Arab Emirates (UAE) deemed a terrorist organization?

Meanwhile, the Council on
American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) continues freely to operate in
America. In the wee hours of election night 2016, in fact, its Los
Angeles office leader called for the overthrow of the U.S. government.

The Trump administration has stated its commitment to fighting Islamic supremacism, including the Muslim Brotherhood itself.

To what lengths would America's leaders go to protect a group that
the United Arab Emirates (UAE) deemed a terrorist organization?

A bombshell new report from the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) reveals the alarming answer.

It involves a man who in his almost 50 years of public life has done
more for America's enemies -- first of the Communist variety and later
of the jihadist brand -- than perhaps any other: Iran lobbyist-in-chief John Kerry.

In the most recent case, he did so in secret, apparently well aware
of the political consequences of exposing the potentially catastrophic
policy he was pursuing to the light of day.

As IPT's report details, Hamas-linked
Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim American
Society (MAS) were classified as terrorist groups by the UAE in 2014, as
two of the 83 entities identified as such for their ties to the
Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.

(Image source: Courtesy of the Investigative Project on Terrorism)

Furious at such a charge, CAIR pushed Secretary of State Kerry to
lobby on its behalf. Kerry's State Department reportedly complied,
meeting with UAE officials regularly to plead CAIR's case.

State signaled such a stance publicly almost from day one. As IPT notes:

At a daily State Department press briefing two days after
UAE released its list, a spokesman said that State does not "consider
CAIR or MAS to be terrorist groups" but that it was seeking more
information from UAE about their decision. He added that "as part of our
routine engagement with a broad spectrum of faith based organizations, a
range of U.S. government officials have met with officials of CAIR and
MAS. We at the State Department regularly meet with a wide range of
faith based groups to hear their views even if some of their views
expressed at times are controversial."

"Controversial" is an interesting way of describing the views of a
group that makes common cause with jihadists and jihadist sympathizers.
There is an irony, as IPT recounts:

Just days before the UAE's 2014 designation of CAIR as a terrorist group in the organization's San Francisco chapter bestowed its "Promoting Justice" award to Sami Al-Arian and his family. Al-Arian secretly ran
an American support network for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)
terrorist group in the late 1980s and early 1990s. PIJ was responsible
for terrorist attacks which killed dozens of Israelis and several
Americans.

CAIR's jihadi ties are numerous and longstanding, involving not only the links of its founders and present leaders to Hamas, and as critics say, apologists
for Islamic terrorism, but also for impeding counterterrorism efforts.
Lawyers in a class-action lawsuit representing the family of slain
former FBI counterterrorism official John P. O'Neill -- who perished in
the 9/11 attacks at the World Trade Center -- named CAIR part of a
criminal conspiracy to promote "radical Islamic terrorism," and declared
that CAIR has

"actively sought to hamper governmental anti-terrorism
efforts by direct propaganda activities aimed at police,
first-responders, and intelligence agencies through so-called
sensitivity training. Their goal is to create as much self-doubt,
hesitation, fear of name-calling, and litigation within police
departments and intelligence agencies as possible so as to render such
authorities ineffective in pursuing international and domestic terrorist
entities."

More directly, as jihad expert Daniel Pipes noted in a 2014 expose,
"At least seven board members or staff at CAIR have been arrested,
denied entry to the U.S., or were indicted on or pled guilty to (or were
convicted of) terrorist charge."

Because of the litany of actions
that CAIR has taken on behalf of and in association with Islamic
supremacists -- as was unearthed during the Holy Land Foundation trial,
which represented the largest terror financing case in U.S. history and
in which CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator -- back in 2008
the FBI officially ceased contact with the group.

During the Obama years, however, groups like CAIR were embraced
under the jihad-enabling "countering violent extremism" (CVE) paradigm.
CVE outsourced "de-radicalization" efforts to "peaceful Islamist,"
Muslim Brotherhood-tied groups. CVE was the antithesis of the comprehensive counterjihadist program America required.

With respect to John Kerry's efforts on behalf of CAIR in particular, the story gets worse:

In December 2014, CAIR met with top officials of the
State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Justice
Department, asking them to pressure the UAE to remove them from the
list, according to reliable sources intimately familiar with the
communications. On December 22, 2014, CAIR issued a press release
asserting that "the two American Muslim organizations and the U.S.
government pledged to work together to achieve a positive solution to
the UAE designations."In response to a letter sent by CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad
sent to Secretary Kerry protesting the UAE designation, Kerry responded
on May 5, 2015 in a letter to Awad stating, "Let me reiterate, first,
that the U.S. government clearly does not consider CAIR to be a
terrorist organization. As your letter noted, the Department of State
rejected this allegation immediately after the UAE designations were
announced in November, and we will continue to do so....U.S. officials
have raised the issue of CAIR's inclusion on the UAE's terror list with
UAE officials on multiple occasions..."That portion of the letter now appears on CAIR's website.
But at the time that the letter was sent to CAIR, according to
knowledgeable sources, there was an agreement between CAIR and the State
Department to keep the letter secret. An excerpt from it was posted on
CAIR's website only in May 2016, a year after it was received. The IPT
has learned that Kerry and CAIR made this agreement to keep the letter
secret...to protect Kerry from public embarrassment. In light of
CAIR's numerous ties to Hamas and other unsavory aspects of its record,
Kerry had good reason to believe that the letter could cause a public
relations disaster for him.

Kerry's efforts proved unsuccessful; the UAE did not budge.

The lifelong leftist enabler of America's foes, whose public career commenced with propagandistic testimony
to the U.S. Senate on the Vietnam War, redounding to the Communist's
benefit, and closed with his support for Islamists including CAIR -- not
to mention the mullahs in Iran -- never paid a price for such efforts.

Meanwhile, CAIR continues freely to operate in America. In the wee
hours of election night 2016, in fact, its Los Angeles office leader called for the overthrow of the U.S. government.

The Muslim Brotherhood may very may very well come under scrutiny in the near-term, as will the efforts of those who oppose the group, as Senator Ted Cruz has re-upped a bill that calls upon the Secretary of State to submit a report on its designation as a foreign terrorist organization.

That bill's text provides helpful background on just why it is that
the Muslim Brotherhood deserves such a classification, noting:

The many countries that have declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization or barred it from operating

The explicit calls for violent jihad, with the end goal of imposing
Islamic law over all the world of the group's founder and spiritual
leader Hassan al-Banna, and the consistently violent Islamic supremacist
content of the Brotherhood's core membership texts

The terrorist efforts of numerous jihadist groups explicitly tied to
the Muslim Brotherhood, and the efforts of individual Muslim
Brotherhood members designated as terrorists by the U.S. government
themselves

The litany of terrorist financing cases involving the Muslim
Brotherhood, including the aforementioned Holy Land Foundation case,
whereby:

Department of Justice officials successfully argued in court that the
international Muslim Brotherhood and its United States affiliates had
engaged in a widespread conspiracy to raise money and materially support
the terrorist group Hamas. HLF officials charged in the case were found
guilty on all counts in November 2008, primarily related to millions of
dollars that had been transferred to Hamas. During the trial and in
court documents, Federal prosecutors implicated a number of prominent
United States-Islamic organizations in this conspiracy, including the
Islamic Society of North America [ISNA], the North American Islamic
Trust [NAIT], and the Council on American-Islamic Relations [CAIR].
These groups and their leaders, among others, were named as unindicted
co-conspirators in the case.

According to a July 2008 Justice Department court filing:

"The mandate of these organizations [ISNA, NAIT and
CAIR], per the International Muslim Brotherhood, was to support HAMAS,
and the HLF's particular role was to raise money to support HAMAS'
organizations inside the Palestinian territories."

Should the Trump administration challenge the Muslim Brotherhood, it
is reasonable to think that it may threaten its offshoots, one of which
is the very Islamic organization in CAIR that the Obama administration
specifically sought to protect.

Should CAIR come under fire, it is a safe bet that the Left will
close ranks, arguing that conservatives are on a witch hunt akin to the
Red Scare to snuff out peaceful Muslims in America.

Those who wish to triumph over the global jihad must challenge this narrative fearlessly.

The argument against CAIR and similar groups is simply this: If you
aid, abet or enable to jihadists, you will be prosecuted, and swiftly.
You are standing with those who wish to kill innocent Americans, and the
government's first job is to protect the life and limb of its citizens.

Efforts to rid America of jihadists, shut down their funding networks
and punish those who give them aid and comfort are about defending the
homeland against a subversive ideology of conquest that seeks to undermine our Constitutional system and supplant it with a totalitarian one based in Islamic law, Sharia.

"Liberals" or "Progressives" might seek to use CAIR as a cudgel to
argue that "conservatives" wish to trample on the rights of Muslims. The
task of the rest of us will be to expose a supposed civil liberties
group as a cleverly-designed front for a theocratic, political Islamic
supremacist movement that seeks to overtake the civil liberties of all
Americans.

That is all the more reason why it is important to bring it to light.

Benjamin WeingartenSource: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9908/jihadist-groups-cair Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Palestinian anti-normalization "enforcers" do their utmost to
conceal the Islamic aspect of their campaign. They are not eager for
the world to know that Islam supplies much of the ideology and
justification for their anti-Israel activities.

On the face of it, the
anti-normalization campaign appears driven by political motivations.
However, it turns out that there is also a powerful Islamic angle to
this campaign of hate, which is aimed at delegitimizing Israel and
demonizing Jews.

The Palestinian anti-normalization "enforcers" do their utmost to
conceal the Islamic aspect of their campaign. They are not eager for
the world to know that Islam supplies much of the ideology and
justification for their anti-Israel activities.

Fatwas (Islamic religious decrees) and statements issued
by leading Muslim scholars and clerics have long warned Muslims against
normalization with the "Zionist entity." Such normalization, they have
made it clear, is considered an "unforgivable crime." The authors of
these hate messages are not opposed to normalization with Israel because
of settlements or house demolitions, but rather because they believe
Jews have no rights at all to any of the land.

In 1989, more than 60 eminent Muslim scholars from 18 countries
ruled that it was forbidden for Muslims to give up any part of
Palestine.

The vicious campaigns to boycott Israel and Jews, while political in dress, are in fact deeply rooted in Islamic ideology.

These campaigns are patently not a legitimate protest. They are
not even part of an effort to boycott Israeli products or politicians
and academics. The real goal of the campaigns is revealed in the words
of the Muslim leaders: that Jews have no rights whatsoever to the land,
and must be targeted through jihad as infidels and enemies of all
Muslims and Arabs

Settlements, checkpoints and fences are irrelevant; Muslim
scholars want Jews off what they define as sacred Muslim land.
Supporters of BDS and the anti-normalization movement would do well to
consider this fact. Failing to do so is tantamount to aiding and
abetting Muslims to destroy Israel, and kill as many Jews as possible in
the process.

Muslim scholars have feverishly citing chapter and verse from the Quran and the hadith, the words of the Prophet Mohammed, in their efforts to encourage Arabs and Muslims to avoid normalization with Jews.

The Quran and hadith have also been leveraged to promote
boycotts against Israel and Jews -- thereby refuting claims by
anti-Israel activists that their campaigns are just about politics.

Palestinians have long maintained that their campaign to ban
normalization with Israel is mainly directed against the Israeli
"occupation" of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. The
Palestinian anti-normalization movement, which continues to target
Israeli and Palestinian peace activists who hold -- horrors! -- public
meetings, has in recent years gained momentum, largely thanks to the
ongoing anti-Israel campaign of incitement and indoctrination in the
Palestinian media and mosques.

In recent years, Palestinian anti-normalization activists have
managed to foil several meetings between Israelis and Palestinians,
under the pretext that such encounters cause damage to the Palestinians.
The activists justify their disruption by citing what they see as
Israeli practices against Palestinians, and violently object to any
meetings with Israelis, including those who wholeheartedly support the
Palestinians and oppose the policies of the Israeli government.

The most recent incident occurred at the Ambassador Hotel in East
Jerusalem, where Israeli and Palestinian activists gathered to talk
about peace and coexistence. Shortly after the meeting began, a number
of anti-normalization activists stormed the conference hall to protest
the meeting.

"Meeting with Zionists is an act of treason," one of the protesters shouted. "There are no solutions. Palestinian must be freed, from the (Jordan) River to the (Mediterranean) Sea. Shame on you!"

The protesters claimed that they were opposed to the meeting because
Israel was "demolishing Arab houses and killing Palestinians."

Hind Khoury, a Christian woman who has previously served as
Palestinian Authority ambassador to France, received the brunt of their
anger. Khoury's attempts to persuade the protesters that the meeting was
not about normalization, but about achieving a just and comprehensive
peace, fell on deaf ears. Ironically, it was the intervention of the
Israeli Police that allowed Israeli and Palestinian activists to proceed
with their conference.

Such scenes have become commonplace at the East Jerusalem hotel, a
preferred site for unofficial peace conferences organized by Israelis
and Palestinians. Anti-normalization activists raid the conference hall several times a year in their attempts to disrupt such gatherings.

The anti-normalization activists have also been vocal in Ramallah and other Palestinian cities. The Palestinian newspaper Al Quds,
which recently published an interview with Israeli Defense Minister
Avigdor Lieberman, has also come under attack. For these Palestinians,
conducting an interview with an Israeli government official is engaging
in "media normalization."

"The newspaper must apologize to the Palestinians," the protesters demanded.

On the face of it, the anti-normalization campaign appears driven by
political motivations. However, it turns out that there is also a
powerful Islamic angle to this campaign of hate, which is aimed at
delegitimizing Israel and demonizing Jews. The Palestinian
anti-normalization "enforcers" do their utmost to conceal the Islamic
aspect of their campaign. They are not eager for the world to know that
Islam supplies much of the ideology and justification for their
anti-Israel activities.

Fatwas (Islamic religious decrees) and statements issued by
leading Muslim scholars and clerics have long warned Muslims against
normalization with the "Zionist entity." Such normalization, they have
made it clear, is considered an "unforgivable crime."

The authors of these hate messages are not opposed to normalization
with Israel because of settlements or house demolitions, but rather
because they believe Jews have no rights at all to any of the land.

"Normalization with the Zionist enemy means turning the presence of Jews in Palestine to something normal," explained one scholar, Adnan Adwan. "Normalization means accepting the right of the Zionist entity to Arab lands and Palestine."

In response to an inquiry from Palestinians about the perspective of
Islam regarding peace and normalization with Jews, a group of leading
Muslim scholars issued a fatwa stating that this was completely haram (forbidden). They even went farther by ruling that any form of peace with Jews was also haram,
despite the fact that Prophet Mohammed signed a treaty, known as the
Constitution of Medina, with Jews and other non-Muslims shortly after
his arrival at Medina from Mecca in 622 CE.

In their fatwa, the Muslim scholars wrote: "It is true that
Prophet Mohammed signed a treaty with the infidels, including the
Quraysh tribe and the Jews, but he did not make concessions that are
contrary to Islam." They pointed out that Prophet Mohammed did not
strike the deal with the infidels in order to allow them to stay in
their homes permanently. Nor did the prophet promise to abandon jihad
(holy war) as a result of this treaty, they added in their fatwa.
"There is no evidence whatsoever that the Prophet or any of his
successors had made peace with infidels controlling Islamic lands," the fatwa clarified.

To support their argument, the scholars quote verses from the Quran
which -- they maintain -- prohibit Muslims from making peace or ever
placing their confidence in Jews. One verse which they claim refers to
Jews is taken from Surah Al-Anfal (The Spoils of War): "And if they
intend to deceive you, then verily, Allah is All-Sufficient for you. He
it is Who has supported you with His Help and with the believers." (62)
According to the fatwa, this verse from the Quran refers specifically to Jews.

The scholars continue with another verse from the same Surah Al-Anfal
to explain why Muslims must continue to fight against Jews:

"O Prophet (Mohammed)! Urge the believers to fight. If
there are twenty steadfast persons amongst you, they will overcome a two
hundred, and if there be a hundred steadfast persons they will overcome
a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are
people who do not understand." (65)

Yet a further verse from the Quran is then cited to substantiate
their ideology of war against the Jews -- verse 7 from Surah At-Taubah
(The Repentance):

"How can there be a covenant with Allah and with His
Messenger for the Mushrikin (polytheists, idolaters, pagans,
disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) expect those with whom you made a
covenant near Al-Masjid al-Haram (at Makkah)? So long, as they are true
to you, stand you true to them. Verily, Allah loves Al-Muttaqun (the
pious)."

According to the fatwa, the "treacherous" Jews have since failed to
"repent" (presumably, convert to Islam) and that is why it is forbidden
to make peace with them.

The Muslim scholars also point to several fatwas prohibiting
peace and normalization with Jews issued in the past century. The ban
dates back to 1935, when a group of Muslim scholars and clerics ruled
during a conference in Jerusalem that it was forbidden for Muslims to
sell Arab-owned lands to Jews. A year later, scholars from Egypt's
Al-Azhar University, one of the first Islamic universities in the Arab
world, ruled that it was the duty of all Muslims to engage in jihad "to
salvage Palestine." In 1989, more than 60 eminent Muslim scholars from
18 countries ruled that it was forbidden for Muslims to give up any part of Palestine.

Other Muslim scholars have referred to another verse in the Quran to
justify banning normalization with Jews. In Surah Al-Mumtahinah (The
Woman to be examined), verse 1 states: "O you who believe! Take not My
enemies and your enemies as friends, showing affection towards them,
while they have disbelieved in what has come to you of the truth." They
also quote the following hadith
(a saying attributed to Prophet Mohammed) to support their claim
against making peace with Jews: "Those who side with the unjust to
assist them in their injustice, while knowing that they are unjust, walk
out of Islam."

The vicious campaigns to boycott Israel and Jews, while political in dress, are in fact deeply rooted in Islamic ideology.

The anti-normalization activists and those promoting boycotts,
divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel perceive Jews as the
enemies of Allah and Prophet Mohammed. These campaigns are patently not a
legitimate protest. They are not even part of an effort to boycott
Israeli products or politicians and academics. The real goal of the
campaigns is revealed in the words of the Muslim leaders: that Jews have
no rights whatsoever to the land, and must be targeted through jihad as
infidels and enemies of all Muslims and Arabs.

Muslim scholars have left no room for doubt about their view of the
true nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Settlements and
checkpoints and fences are irrelevant; Muslim scholars want Jews off
what they define as sacred Muslim land. BDS and anti-normalization
movement supporters might do well to consider this fact. Failing to do
so is tantamount to aiding and abetting Muslims to destroy Israel, and
kill as many Jews as possible in the process.

Bassam Tawil is a scholar based in the Middle East.Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9891/islamic-jihad-jews Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Pinpointing the psychological pathology of the anti-Trump Left.

“AS SOMEBODY WHO ESCAPED LEBANON AND ACTUALLY HID UNDER DESKS TO AVOID DEATH SQUADS, I DON’T TAKE WELL TO THESE IDIOTS FROM WELLESLEY COLLEGE WHO SAY, ‘I’M SCARED TO GO AND BUY MY HAMBURGERS NOW THAT TRUMP WON,’ BECAUSE IT TRIVIALIZES WHAT TRUE TRAUMA IS.” — GAD SAAD

Gad Saad (@GadSaad) is an outspoken social critic of the lunacies found in the extremes of both political sides. A controversial figure to some, his family fled the Lebanese civil war under threat of persecution for their Jewish religious heritage. He’s a Professor of Marketing and holder of the Concordia University Research Chair in Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences and Darwinian Consumption. Dr. Saad hosts a popular YouTube show called The Saad Truth, and has appeared on shows such as The Rubin Report, The Joe Rogan Experience, and the Adam Carolla Show. He writes a column for Psychology Today titled Homo Consumericus.

I spoke to him about the hysteria around a Donald Trump presidency, speaking out as an academic, and the field of evolutionary psychology and its detractors. The following is our conversation transcribed and edited for clarity.

Malhar Mali: There seems to be an extreme strain of thought held by some that Trump’s inauguration will signal the apocalypse and return of the third-reich, that people of color will be rounded up, women will be sexually assaulted en-masse, and LGBTQ citizens will be executed on sight. What are your thoughts on that?

Gad Saad: Early last year I introduced a theory to explain the mass hysteria associated with social justice warriors. I called it “collective Munchausen” syndrome. Munchausen disorder is when somebody feigns a medical illness or injury to garner sympathy and empathy. Munchausen syndrome by proxy is when you have somebody under your care — say your child — and you harm that third party to garner sympathy. “Look, my child is hurt!” So it’s a really morbid, grotesque psychological desire to draw attention to yourself because you enjoy the sympathy you receive.

I took this psychiatric disorder that I’d written about in a medical journal and then I argued that the manner in which social justice warriors respond is really a manifestation of collective Munchausen. It’s more than just mass hysteria — which is a known psychological mechanism. It has a specific goal which is to turn the attention inward to: “Oh my god, we’re such victims.” So the faux-fear we’re seeing now with all of these, for lack of a better term, schmucks is a form of collective Munchausen. It’s: “Oh my god, we’re going to be gang-raped, the third-reich is coming for us.” I put up a satirical video where I reported that the inauguration death patrols were coming for me whilst hiding under the table in my study.

The naturally lobotomized individuals do not understand the gist of my position: I do this not because it’s not reasonable to have concerns about anything Trump may or not do. I could say, “I really dislike his education cabinet for the following reasons.” And that’s reasonable. Any candidate you bring before me, I would have agreements and disagreements with.

The problem arises when you have a discourse fully detached from reality. It’s beyond satirical and grotesque in how much stupidity is exhibited. A typical comment on my social feed might state something to the following effect, “I’m a woman of color,” she’s attending some school in Maine and she’s saying, “I’m afraid. Can I still go to class?” Just work it through. What’s going to happen when Trump becomes president? He sets up roadblocks on every street corner whereby he whisks away all people of color to the designated gang-rape centers? What could explain that hysteria? The only thing that explains it is a departure from reality — and hence collective Munchausen syndrome.

MM: We value victims — which is a good thing — but there are groups popping up and individuals who seem to be vying for higher statuses of victimhood. You call this “victimology poker”.

GS: Everyone who is suffering from collective Munchausen and mass hysteria are obviously of a particular political bent — the ultra-Left (who typically belong to the Democratic party). And these people have built their whole ethos, edifice, zeitgeist on Identity Politics. Identity Politics leads to victimology poker and the oppression olympics. These groups just end up competing to see who is more oppressed because it is the mechanism through which they attempt to solve problems. If you and I are having a genuine debate, I would present my evidence and you yours. The better evidence would win out.

That’s not what happens in an Identity Politics debate. My victimology card has to trump yours! (Laughter) therefore people have to come up with ever stronger cards and hands and end up falling into victim mindsets. This leads to people thinking absurd lines of thought like — and I’m being satirical here — : “How will I go to the store and feel safe buying tomatoes once Trump is in office?” or “What will happen to my children? Will Trump cause us to cannibalize our children?” “Will sex still be permitted?” When you’re getting into that kind of delusional discourse it seems extraordinary that this is viewed as reasonable discourse. These are professors, these are colleagues of mine who feel perfectly comfortable departing from reality in this way.

Hate Trump as much as you want. Hate specific policies by him but don’t engage in this grotesque discourse. Especially because it trivializes actual lived trauma. As somebody who escaped Lebanon and actually hid under desks to avoid death squads, I don’t take well to these idiots from Wellesley College who say, “I’m scared to go and buy my hamburgers now that Trump won,” because it trivializes what true trauma is.

MM: What would you say to your critics who would claim that you unfairly focus on left-wing lunacy and give right-wing craziness a pass — thereby “normalizing” Donald Trump?

GS: I call that the, “But what about Israel, bruh?” position. So I can’t talk about Islamic craziness unless I grant equal airtime to criticizing Israel? That’s not how life works. We create a hierarchy of things that compel us. Some people fight for Tibetan freedom, others for Cypriot rights from Turkish occupation. So we don’t have to grant equal time to different issues.

I inhabit the ecosystem of academia. The ecosystem of academia is not run by Right-wing craziness. The academic setting, media elite, and the Hollywood elite are all part of the Left-wing lunacy. So everyday I don’t face the threat of the KKK or Right-wing fascism but I do see the extraordinary harm that is caused by what takes place in universities. That reality is caused by Left-wing lunacy. Hence as a person with a functioning brain I don’t need to provide equal amounts of criticism — that doesn’t mean I’m condoning Right-wing craziness. When I see some Republican senator who comes out with a position that is anti-science and evolution denying, I will be the first to typically criticize that. It’s not as if I exist to pick on the Left and grant cover to the Right. The reality is, in my daily life, I see a lot more danger coming from the Left.

MM: You’re one of the most outspoken academics who speaks about Islam and “Social Justice Warriors”. Are your views rare in academia or do you think there are other academics who support your message but are afraid to voice it. What motivates you to be a part of this debate and speak out?

GS: Yes it’s rare. If we were to estimate the number of people who hold positions similar to mine, it would be higher than those who are actually speaking out — because they’re afraid of voicing their opinions. I get personal communiqués from academics where they say, “I support what you’re doing” or “I’m behind your message” but they’re not comfortable speaking out. But they’re scared to even “like” one of my Facebook posts because someone would see it and that would mean they’re supporting supposedly “fascist” ideas such as freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, rights for Jews, and rights for gays. Those are supposedly all very “controversial” topics that they don’t want people to know they support because those are all “fascist” opinions. People with a “progressive” mindset don’t possess the correct moral compass in navigating these issues; they fear being accused of being a “racist bigot” for supporting freedom of speech and more generally foundational liberal values. It is astounding.

There is some change underway. Heterodox Academy is a collective organized by Jonathan Haidt precisely to recognize the fact we need to provide greater political diversity and more generally a greater diversity of opinions in academia.

Why do I do what I do? I think it’s my personhood; my unique constellation of genes that make me very angry and offended by un-truths. I get genuinely angered at profound bullshit. I feel I must give my voice to contribute to the debate and if everybody had that bent, bad ideas would not have as much airtime.

I think the loftiest pursuit in life is that of truth and therefore I try to honor that ideal at every opportunity.

Malhar MaliSource: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265744/gad-saad-hysteria-and-collective-munchausen-around-malhar-mali Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Most
significant is the “removal of all reference to jihad and opposing the
occupation of Palestine.”

Jordan’s King Abdullah II visited the U.S. last week and met many
officials from the new administration, including Trump. In October, a
report stated
that Jordan was becoming close friends with Israel, and that “some
Palestinians fear they’ve been jilted by Jordan, which seems to be
cozying up to Israel rather quickly.

Against this backdrop, the Muslim Brotherhood is unhappy about Jordan
removing the Qur’an’s jihad verses from its curriculum. Most
significant is the “removal of all reference to jihad and opposing the
occupation of Palestine.”

The Brotherhood is often regarded as the wing of jihad that pursues
its goals against the House of War by peaceful means, but this is not
always the case. If the occasion calls for it, the Muslim Brotherhood
may opt for violence.

After its founding in 1928 by Hasan al-Banna,
“as an Islamic revivalist movement following the collapse of the
Ottoman Empire,” the movement became more violent. It blamed the
“Egyptian government for being passive against ‘Zionists’ and joined the
Palestinian side in the war against Israel and started performing
terrorist acts inside of Egypt.” Al-Banna called it the duty of all
Muslims to perform bloody jihad, stating “their pure blood is a symbol
of victory in this world and the mark of success and felicity in the
world to come.”

In keeping with the vision of al-Banna, Palestinian children have long been taught violence and hatred against Israel as part of their school curriculum.“Muslim Brotherhood Protests Removal of Jihad Verses From Jordanian Curriculum”, by Ali Waked, Breitbart, February 5, 2017:

JAFFA, Israel – Dozens of Quranic verses have been
removed from the Jordanian national curriculum, including those
referencing jihad, prompting criticism from the Muslim Brotherhood and
its representatives in Jordan.Huda Alatoum, an educator and high-profile MP for the Muslim
Brotherhood, said that “far-reaching changes” have been introduced in
Jordan’s school program that remove verses and hadiths (oral traditions)
“pertaining to Prophet Mohammed’s life.”“About 40 percent of the curriculum about Arabic language and Islam
have been changed, including the removal of all reference to jihad and
opposing the occupation of Palestine,” she charged, adding that “325
verses and 75 Islamic texts have been removed.”She concluded by warning that “even worse changes” are ahead.Alatoum said she decided to hold a press conference after her protest efforts in parliament met with failure…….Al-Monitor reported on the curriculum changes:A religious and political dispute continues to brew in Jordan over a
controversial move by the Ministry of Education to revamp the curricula
of the three elementary grades. According to Deputy Prime Minister Jawad
Anani, the changes are part of the government’s strategy to combat
extremism in society.Changes to school textbooks introduced this year involve coverage of
Islam, history, Arabic and civics. For example, in civics, reference is
made to acknowledge Christians as a demographic component of the
population with pictures of churches as well as mosques. In religion,
entire verses from the Quran and sayings by the Prophet Muhammad have
been removed, while in Arabic literature, a picture of a veiled woman
was replaced with one showing an unveiled woman. In Arabic-language
textbooks for the third grade, a Quranic verse was replaced by a text on
swimming. No changes were made to books on the sciences, mathematics
and art.The issue of extremism in the school curricula and the reforms
proposed are dividing the country. Conservatives, including the Muslim
Brotherhood’s Islamic Action Front (IAF), which contested the Sept. 20
Lower House elections, have denounced the move “as an affront to our
heritage and values aimed at distancing future generations from its
religion, its Arab identity, its history and traditions.”

Alatoum’s campaign became a sensation on social media.

“That’s what the West wants, a generation that knows nothing about
its religion except prayer and fasting,” Misbah tweeted. “They amend the
curriculum pretending to root out extremism, but they introduce only
corruption instead.”

Jordan’s King Abdullah II visited the United States last week and met
several officials from the new administration, including President
Donald Trump….

Robert SpencerSource: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/02/muslim-brotherhood-protests-jordans-removal-of-qurans-jihad-verses-from-curriculum Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Basically, the UNRWA is a terrorist training camp.

In April 2016, a video by Hamas was exposed showing "hysterical children in the company of exorcising preachers. It is a humiliating and invasive rite practiced at the Al-Nil School in Gaza City." It is, however, hardly a surprise for people who have followed this never-ending child abuse, as this video exhorts the children to become "warriors" in the jihad or holy war against Israel and the infidels.

These children are taught to hate. Yet, when the French historian of Moroccan heritage, George Bensoussan, stated that "[i]t is a shame to deny this taboo, namely that in the Arab families in France, and everyone knows it but nobody wants to say it, anti-Semitism is sucked with mother's milk" he was put on trial for saying this."

As Khaled Abu Toameh explains "[Palestinian] children do not dream about becoming doctors, pilots or engineers; an entire generation of Palestinians, particularly those in the Gaza Strip, has been raised on the glorification of suicide bombers and anyone who kills a Jew."

In fact, "what is happening to the Palestinian people, who have forever been led by leaders who care nothing for their well-being, is a tragedy of national proportions." And, of course, the first victims are the children.

Since 1996, the Palestinian Media Watch (PMW), under the direction of Itamar Marcus, has exposed the schoolbooks and propaganda material used to brainwash Palestinian children. In 2015 a report issued by PMW highlighted the Palestinian Authority's teaching its children to "reject Israel's right to exist, encourag[ing] them to view Jews as evil and direct[ing] them to embrace terrorist murderers as role models. This report exposes a world of demonization, incitement and hate that Palestinian children are urged to adopt."

When shown the hateful material emanating from the PA, then Senator Hillary Clinton "condemned the PA's messages to children and stated that the official PA TV broadcasts were 'a clear example of child abuse.'" In fact, the textbooks "do not give Palestinian children an education; they give them an indoctrination. When viewed . . . in combination with other media that these children are exposed to, we see a larger picture that is disturbing… because it basically profoundly poisons the minds of these children."

Common themes running through the hate-filled messages include:

Israel has no right to exist.

Israel will disappear and be replaced by Palestine.

Violence -- “armed struggle” -- is legitimate to fight Israel.

Muslims must fight an eternal Islamic war against Israel.

Killers of Israelis are heroes and role models.

Martyrdom or death for Allah is the utmost honor.

Jews are “monkeys and pigs.”

Jews are “enemies of Allah.”

Jews are the “most evil of creations.”

Schools are named after terrorists and Hitler is honored. On January 20, 2017, young children on a PA TV children's program recited a poem promoting the escalation of violence: and recited "my rock has turned into an AK-47." On January 8, 2017 a "young girl chants at a Fatah rally north of Nablus, that '[d]eath is insignificant… I love Palestine, blood is spilled for it."

In February 2017, a UN Watch report titled "Poisoning Palestinian Children" highlights the endless teaching and incitement to jihadist terrorism and anti-Semitism that is the foundation of teaching to Palestinian children. The report's graphic pictures expose "more than 40 Facebook pages operated by school teachers, principals, and other employees of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) which incite terrorism and anti-Semitism. It includes UNRWA staffers in Lebanon, Jordan, Gaza, and Syria." The potent examples in the report show teachers and staffers "celebrating the terrorist kidnapping of Israeli teenagers, cheering rockets being fired at Israeli civilian centers, endorsing various forms of violence, erasing Israel from the map, praising Hitler and posting his photo and overtly anti-Semitic videos, caricatures and statements."

Basically, the UNRWA is a terrorist training camp. The United States gave $380 million in 2015, the EU $136 million, the UK $100 million, and Canada $25 million. Even when UN Watch exposed similar cases last year, nothing was done and, in fact, a UNRWA spokesman "lashed out at UN Watch" for exposing the truth. Legal violations of the UNRWA, which are discussed in the report, the act of inciting terrorism, the public display of Facebook posts which celebrate radical Islamic terrorism, and the violation of internal United Nations policies are clear-cut reasons why UNRWA needs to be dismantled. Clearly, nothing short of this will make a difference.

Not content with poisoning children's minds in school, the Islamic world countenances more and more children marriages. In Iran, where the marriage age is nine years old, "the rate of child marriage is increasing exponentially in the Islamic Republic of Iran, [as well as] Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, and even some Muslim communities in the West. The U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child has warned Iran over the rise in child marriages and for allowing sex and execution at age 9" according to Dr. Majid Rafizadeh.

Further depravity is demonstrated with the news that in the United Kingdom "a six-year-old girl with learning difficulties was removed from school and taken to marry an older man in Pakistan."

In Pakistan, "Pakistani lawmakers had to withdraw a bill aimed at curbing the practice of child marriage after a prominent religious body declared the legislation un-Islamic. The bill, which proposed raising the marriage age for females from 16 to 18, also called for harsher penalties for those who would arrange marriages involving children. Despite the laws in place, child marriages, particularly involving young female brides, are common in parts of the country. It's estimated that some 20 percent of the girls in the country are married before they turn 18."

What we repeatedly see is child abuse of the highest order and religiously endorsed pedophilia. It is endemic in the Islamic world and it is now rearing its ugly head in the West with no sign of abating.

If, as the Talmud states, "the world exists only because of the innocent breath of schoolchildren" then the world that the Islamists are creating and that the West appears to be ignoring, is a dire one, indeed. Mokher Sefarim Mendele, Yiddish storyteller, wrote that "children without childhood are a dark and fearsome spectacle." Children taught to be suicide bombers, young girls whose very bodies and souls are destroyed -- how can a society continue this ongoing assault on its young?

Children "deserve to be brought up valuing peace, but Palestinian children are being deprived of a peaceful future and are victims of their own leaders." The entire Islamic landscape is sacrificing its young and this depressing scenario must be halted if we are ever to truly live in peace and harmony where children's nightmares are stilled.

Eileen F. Toplansky can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.comSource: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/02/pity_the_children_of_the_islamic_world.html Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Many within the Iranian-American community consider NIAC to be a de facto lobby for the Iranian regime.

The Obama administration’s effort to engage Iran remained a matter of suspicion until the 44th American president left the White House. Concerns began mounting especially after Obama turned his back on the 2009 uprising in parallel to the revelation of secret correspondence with Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

As more light is shed, the more we realize how far this relationship expanded. Known members of Iran’s lobbies and others enjoyed unprecedented access to the White House. This new knowledge calls for a complete overhaul of the corrupt U.S. foreign policy establishment.

Shocking Numbers

Through the course of the nuclear talks that rendered the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the Obama White House welcomed a slate of different Iranian-American so-called “experts” and organizations who agreed completely over how Washington must engage in Tehran rapprochement.

Parsi’s record was second only to Jeremy Ben Ami, President of J Street, described as a strong advocate of the Iran appeasement camp, who visited the White House on 44 occasions.

And finally, one NIAC alumni, Sahar Nowrouzzadeh, National Security Council Director for Iran in Obama’s White House, reached the point of obtaining daily access to the White House and promoting a pro-Iran regime approach.

Described as having links to the Obama White House's cheerleading of the narrative in support of the Iranian regime, Parsi, head of NIAC, was able to meet with several senior Obama administration officials in dozens of White House visits, according to the logs.

Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security advisor, provided exclusive access to Parsi in private talks. He also arranged meetings with Colin Kahl, former Vice President Joe Biden’s national security advisor.

Various sources also indicated Parsi meeting with other senior officials including NSC director for Iran.

One instance shows West Wing intern Solomon Tarlin, known to support J Street, signed Parsi into the White House.

However, Parsi is a figure who during the Bush administration dined with Iran’s former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, suggesting that he pursues the interest of the Iranian regime in its entirety, and not the so-called “moderates“.

Parsi was also pictured in conversation with the brother of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.

Parsi is known to brag about his access to senior Iranian regime officials.“Few analysts in Washington have the access of Dr. Parsi to decision makers in Iran,” he described in a bio.

NIAC

NIAC, a Washington-based lobbying organization founded by Parsi in 2002, focuses on influencing senior American officials and politicians. A piece written by Iranian dissident Alex Shirazi in the Daily Blaze sheds more light on NIAC’s intentions, serving completely in Iran’s interests.

NIAC was architected by the little known Namazi family in Iran, described as favoring “political interests in the Islamic Republic.”

Insight into NIAC’s background can be obtained from regrets made public by Carl Gershman, President of the National Endowment for Democracy. Gershman accused NIAC of misrepresenting its true nature.

“… NIAC showed itself as a lobby organization, so we have nothing to do with them anymore.”

Al Arabiya English cited the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg referring to Parsi as an individual who “does a lot of leg-work for the Iranian regime.” (Goldberg at one point retracted this description, but shortly afterward retracted his retraction.)

NIAC misleadingly presented its agenda as meeting U.S. national interests. The very regime NIAC sells is known for “Death to America!” mantras and killing at least hundreds, if not thousands, of American personnel.

NIAC goes as far as claiming to advocate “human rights” in Iran and “civil rights” in the U.S., insulting Americans by placing their country alongside the ruthless regime in Iran.

In fact, NIAC lobbies for a friendly U.S. relationship with the current Iranian regime and strongly opposes economic sanctions. All this goes while Iran state media describe NIAC as the "Iran lobby in the U.S."

“…Parsi admits that his group only has 2,500 to 3,000 members. Internal documents, uncovered by Lake, show that less than 500 people responded to a membership survey that the group put out last year. So, far from representing the views of any appreciable number of Iranian Americans, it is far more accurate to say that NIAC represents the views of Trita Parsi.

“…may be guilty of violating tax laws, the Foreign Agents Registration Act and lobbying disclosure laws, according to law enforcement authorities…

“… former FBI special agent in counterintelligence and counterterrorism Kenneth Piernick, said, ‘It appears that this may be lobbying on behalf of Iranian government interests.’”

The report continues:

“…the group’s acting director for policy, Patrick Disney, authored a memo last year in which he stated, “I believe we fall under this definition of “lobbyist.’” And according to other communications Lake obtained, Parsi himself used the word ‘lobby’ to describe the purpose and mission of NIAC.”

Parsi and Zarif

Released email records indicate close ties between Parsi and Tehran, especially through Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. Reports in this regard are quite vivid.

According to NIAC emails released under a lawsuit, in April 2006, Zarif, then Iran’s ambassador to the U.N., gave a copy of Iran’s 2003 offer for a “grand bargain" to Parsi, subsequently released to the press and used in a campaign to prove Iran was ready for peace and dialogue. (For more information on Parsi’s role in providing a copy of Iranian offer to the press, read the Washington Post, Anti-War, and IPS reports.)

A few weeks later, Parsi launched the “Iran Negotiation Project” and began arranging meetings between Congressional members and Zarif. Then in his 25 October 2006 email, Parsi told Zarif about Congressional members who had decided to oppose George Bush’s policy on Iran and requested a meeting.

A Deeper look into NIAC

Many within the Iranian-American community consider NIAC to be a de facto lobby for the Iranian regime. In 2008 as criticism against NIAC’s pro-regime activities mounted, NIAC and Parsi raised a defamation lawsuit against one of its critics, attempting to destroy him through the financial burden of a lawsuit and as a result silence all other critics.

In 2012 a court dismissed the lawsuit and sanctioned NIAC and Trita Parsi for abuses which included false declarations to the court, ordering them to pay $184,000 towards the defendant’s legal expenses.

This lawsuit forced NIAC to release some internal documents that turned out to be devastating. The Washington Times and many others published these documents.

NIAC claims to have a goal of preventing war between the U.S. and Iran. Critics, however, affirm NIAC’s lobby has always primarily focused on business and the peace mantle it wears is nothing but a face for its lobby efforts.

Back in 2002-03, Parsi used his access to the U.S. Congress to prepare reports about the latest developments regarding Iran and send the reports to Tehran.

Final Thoughts

This newly revealed White House log shows how the Obama administration bent over backwards in hosting advocates seeking Iran’s interests, and not that of America.

Allowing Parsi into the White House more than 30 times, despite his foreign policy positions being completely in line with the Iranian regime, provides intriguing insight into how far the Obama administration went to aid the mullahs, while they continued, and continue today, to describe America as the “Great Satan”.

The access provided to the likes of Parsi and NIAC provides all the knowledge needed about the true nature of the highly flawed nuclear deal sealed by the Obama administration with Tehran.

And this is only a tip of the iceberg of how far Obama’s failed appeasement policy provided unprecedented access to NIAC, and to this end, the Iranian regime.

This signifies the necessity of the new Trump administration to completely overhaul agencies dealing with Iran, and to impose radical changes on Washington’s Iran policy altogether.

Amir BasiriSource: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/02/how_deep_was_the_obamairan_relationship.html Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.